God's election

[Allan]

Please do not compare writings in a culture several thousand years B.C., to the A.D., partially Hellenized culture to which Christ and the Apostles were communicating.

Actaully Win is correct that the woman could/can refuse.
That is historically valid. Most often she didn't, NOT because she couldn't but out of 1) duty to her family, 2) removing herself as a financial burden to her family, and 3) potentially bringing shame to her family for not going through with it.

However their cerimony just like ours had both the Groom and the bride accept the joining. It wasn't a one man party and she had no say. That is completely and historically 'inaccurate', period. If she had no say then she was forced into marriage and the union between them would be rape. She would be nothing more than an unwilling concubine.

 

[The Archangel]

Allan and Havensdad,

Perhaps I am getting in between you guys...and maybe I shouldn't. Please forgive me if I interrupt your mojo.

Allan, you said in response to Havensdad:

No, I am interpreting it from a/the consistent view of those Greek and Hebrew scholars who understood the 1st century (and earlier) mind set and know a great deal more than you or I.

It is obvious from a historical view that neither the Hebrew or Greek form of the word 'knew' has never historically been translated (in any language) as spiritual joining and as such proves my point that you trying to redefine the word.

On your first statement, I think it is important to understand how the first audience would have heard it. I think that is the main thing. I think this is what you are getting at. But, context may prove at least as much of a help as the requisite scholarly input.

As to your second statement, I may be misunderstanding what you are saying and for that I'm sorry. But it appears, at least to me, that your statement, as I understand it, is inaccurate.

In Genesis 18:19 God is talking about Abraham and a weird idiom is used--the ESV states: "...I have chosen him..." But the really weird thing is that the word translated as chosen is at its root ִיָדַע

Of course that is the root for "to know." God is saying that He chose Abraham (by knowing him, in a non-sexual way of course). At the very least that seems to imply (or dare I say mandate) the understanding that a spiritual union of a type exists and that God was the initiator and Abraham was the responder.

So, I'm not sure if that is what you all are getting at, but it seems to me the common Hebrew usage implies a union...perhaps spiritual, definitely covenantal.

It's late and I'm silly with sleep deprivation. It's time to sleep.

Blessings to you all,

The Archangel

 

[Allan]

Allan and Havensdad,

Perhaps I am getting in between you guys...and maybe I shouldn't. Please forgive me if I interrupt your mojo.

Step in brother (just don't 2 step- it's been years since I did that)

Allan, you said in response to Havensdad:


On your first statement, I think it is important to understand how the first audience would have heard it. I think that is the main thing. I think this is what you are getting at. But, context may prove at least as much of a help as the requisite scholarly input.

Agreed. I would add that 'scholarly input', while not always the epitome of absolute truth, does have a strong arm when all or even most agree - does it not?
And do the scholars not take into account context, since it is from the context that a words definition is formed?

I have found, to often on both sides of the fence, people trying to use the potential implication of word for it's actaul defintion.

As to your second statement, I may be misunderstanding what you are saying and for that I'm sorry. But it appears, at least to me, that your statement, as I understand it, is inaccurate.

Ok, I'm listening.

In Genesis 18:19 God is talking about Abraham and a weird idiom is used--the ESV states: "...I have chosen him..." But the really weird thing is that the word translated as chosen is at its root ִיָדַע

In my ESV, in it's footnotes, states the Hebrew word is 'known' (yada).

Ok let's just go with it we have it as the root word.
The root word gives parameters to the new word so it maintains a 'likeness' to it's root and thus shares a somewhat similar meaning, but they do not mean the exact same thing. IOW - from one meaning, 'another' meaning is derived while keeping some of the characteristics of it's root.

Even with 'known' as it's root word this still does not disprove my point which is - the 'root' word has never been translated as 'love' or as 'spiritual union'.
Am I correct or incorrect in this?

Of course that is the root for "to know." God is saying that He chose Abraham (by knowing him, in a non-sexual way of course). At the very least that seems to imply (or dare I say mandate) the understanding that a spiritual union of a type exists and that God was the initiator and Abraham was the responder.

it seems even you are are not sure enough to state the word literally means a spiritual union or for that matter 'love'. Why not? Why not say mandates rather than 'seems to imply.. an understanding..?

I do not nor have I denied implications can be seen and understood but implications can also be read into words/phrases or even more than one implication seen reading words or phrases.
Implications tend mostly to suggest meaning though they are not the meaning itself.
A definition, an implication does not make.

IOW- If we take the word 'yada' and each and every time it is used regarding God and man to state it refers to a spiritual union or love, that would be silly. However we also can not pick and choose where we wish to place 'implications' that the word had in one place, where ever we wish. Implications are not definitions.

So, I'm not sure if that is what you all are getting at, but it seems to me the common Hebrew usage implies a union...perhaps spiritual, definitely covenantal.

The issue is actaully simplistic.
Has the Hebrew or Greek word for 'know/knew' ever been translated as 'love' or 'spiritual union'. This specifcially goes back the phrase those whom He 'foreknew' or as Aresman and Heavensdad are contending for - those whom He fore-loved or 'those whom He was in spiritual union beforehand...


I agree though. I need to get off because though I am at work, I am very tired and dog sick.
Hope your day goes better :laugh:

 

[Havensdad]

Actaully Win is correct that the woman could/can refuse.
That is historically valid. Most often she didn't, NOT because she couldn't but out of 1) duty to her family, 2) removing herself as a financial burden to her family, and 3) potentially bringing shame to her family for not going through with it.

However their cerimony just like ours had both the Groom and the bride accept the joining. It wasn't a one man party and she had no say. That is completely and historically 'inaccurate', period. If she had no say then she was forced into marriage and the union between them would be rape. She would be nothing more than an unwilling concubine.

Obviously, anyone can say no to anything. I can say "I am NOT going to feed my children".

However, it was not socially accepted for the woman to refuse, she never did (in record, anyway), and their were serious consequences for her doing so.

Also, it would depend upon whom you were speaking to. The law of the Roman Empire, was that all of a man's children, and his wife were in complete subjection to him. A father had complete say over his childrens life, even when they were grown. In this case, a woman COULD NOT refuse. So, for instance, when Paul is speaking with the Roman Gentiles and Hellenized Jews in his letter to them...

In any case: the cultural norm would dictate the interpretation. Jews at the time would see the Father as "choosing" the bride, to be a foregone conclusion.

 

[Jerome]

I Cor. 7:39
The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.

 

[Allan]

Obviously, anyone can say no to anything. I can say "I am NOT going to feed my children".

Then you acknowledge the fact they (the woman) could refuse.

However, it was not socially accepted for the woman to refuse, she never did (in record, anyway), and their were serious consequences for her doing so.

I agree that it is not a socially accected norm to reject a marriage, however much also went into setting up especially making sure that 'mother-in-law' was satisfactorily happy. Thus by this point it was typcially already something the woman had consented to.
However, that does not discount those times where the woman 'did' refuse and either the contractual stage never was settled or the marriage never took place (at the point of the marriage itself I agree was probably as rare as a blue moon).

We don't even have 2% of the histiorical data on marriages, which includes the contractual stage, betrothal stage, up to the marriage itself, though what we do have exists to validate those known marriages.

But again, it is conceded that a woman 'could' refuse/reject during any point in time, though I would concede most often a rejection would have happened in the contractual stage in which families met, dowries talked about, etc.. and not in the betrothal stage in which all was the above was agreed upon and the marriage set.

Also, it would depend upon whom you were speaking to. The law of the Roman Empire, was that all of a man's children, and his wife were in complete subjection to him. A father had complete say over his childrens life, even when they were grown. In this case, a woman COULD NOT refuse. So, for instance, when Paul is speaking with the Roman Gentiles and Hellenized Jews in his letter to them...

While that is true, a woman still could still refuse to marry a person but her fathers will spoke for her. Thus she would be technically married but she was more like an endentured slave with the convenience of not be charged with continual rape. but then again, that was the Roman culture.

In any case: the cultural norm would dictate the interpretation. Jews at the time would see the Father as "choosing" the bride, to be a foregone conclusion.

True but you must include all the facts to get the right picture.
Yes, a father could/did choose the bride, but the bride must also accept the proposition.

 

[AresMan]

I've argued this same point here over the years, that these phrases preceded by time language are actually anthropomorphic in nature given to finite beings bound by time. I've been called a Methodist There is no "fore" or "pre" with an omnipresent God, but this is how we must view God as we cannot fathom anyone existing in all points in time at the same time.

Um, yeah. I agree completely. I don't know anyone here who believes otherwise. The anthropomorphic use of proginwskw in the sense of people being the direct object is that God's actions are the cause and man's salvific actions toward God are the effectual response.

The Scriptures do not say that God foreknew about people or foreknew the faith of people, but rather they say that God foreknew the people themselves. Just like I say that I know someone, implying that we have an intimate relationship, so God in eternity foreknew or fore-related to certain people based solely upon His own will. He chose to enter into a familial relationship with certain people, and their coming to Him is a result of His actions related to His foreknowing. His foreknowing is causative rather than responsive.

 

[AresMan]

Did I say there wasn't? No.
I said the Hebrew word is 'never' transated as such though it can infer the meaning BUT it must be remembered that you can not have a spiritual joining without the s*xual act. This is why the word knew/know is NEVER translated as anything but as a s*xual idiom in these cases. It is true you can not have one without the other but you also can not have the spiritual joining without the physical act preceding it.

That said, though I do not dispute the there is a connection between the act and the joining, my contenstion lies squarely on two points:
1. Both the Hebrew and Greek word for Knew/Know have never been historically translated as a spiritual joining because it was concept that was inferred.
2. Neither the Hebrew nor Greek ever historically translated the word Knew/Know as - love.

What do these verses imply?

Mat 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
Mat 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Does this mean that Jesus was not aware of their existence, or does it mean He never knew them, as in had a relationship with them? Also, this obviously does not signify a marital relationship, unless you are Jack Schaap.

Joh 10:14 I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine.

Is the Good Shepherd simply aware of the existence of His sheep or does He have a relationship with them? Do the sheep simply have cognizance of a good shepherd or do they have a relationship with Him?

Joh 10:15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.

Is Jesus simply aware of the existence of the Father, and is the Father simply aware of the existence of Jesus, or do they have a relationship?

Joh 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
Joh 10:28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
Joh 10:29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.
Joh 10:30 I and my Father are one.

Is Jesus simply aware of the existence of His sheep, or does He have a relationship with them?

None of these passages imply marital relations; however, they obviously imply a relationship. If you say that you know a person, you are not expressing mere cognizance of existence or awareness of facts; you are implying that you have some form of non-passive relationship.

Even so, when the Scriptures say that God foreknew people; it is saying that He fore-related to them. Before the foundation of the world (however you want to explain that regarding relativity and eternity), God fore-related people as family; because of this choice, God will draw these people according to His will effectually to be His children. The foreknowing of God to people says nothing about Him "foreseeing" actions or faith and responding appropriately. The Scriptures do not say, "Of whom he foreknew about" or "Whom he foreknew would believe." It says:

Rom 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called [v.30] according to his purpose.
Rom 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, [them] he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
Rom 8:30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called [v.28]: and whom he called [v.28], them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

It is obvious from a historical view that neither the Hebrew or Greek form of the word 'knew' has never historically been translated (in any language) as spiritual joining and as such proves my point that you trying to redefine the word.

In Hebrew, Greek, and English, if one says that he knows a person, he is expressing that he has some form of non-passive relationship. God foreknowing people means that God fore-relationshipped them.

The word 'know/knew' isn't even used here. As I have stated many times, the Greek and Hebrew word for 'know/knew' is used historically as a s*xual idiom and isn't nor has it been used to speak specifically of a spiritual union. It is or can be inferred but is never translated as such.

It is used as a s*xual idiom with the understanding that the use of know with a person as the object implies a non-passive relationship, not mere cognizance or awareness of existence or facts.

 

[Allan]

What do these verses imply?

Does this mean that Jesus was not aware of their existence, or does it mean He never knew them, as in had a relationship with them? Also, this obviously does not signify a marital relationship, unless you are Jack Schaap.

Is the Good Shepherd simply aware of the existence of His sheep or does He have a relationship with them? Do the sheep simply have cognizance of a good shepherd or do they have a relationship with Him?

Is Jesus simply aware of the existence of the Father, and is the Father simply aware of the existence of Jesus, or do they have a relationship?

Is Jesus simply aware of the existence of His sheep, or does He have a relationship with them?

None of these passages imply marital relations; however, they obviously imply a relationship. If you say that you know a person, you are not expressing mere cognizance of existence or awareness of facts; you are implying that you have some form of non-passive relationship.

Even so, when the Scriptures say that God foreknew people; it is saying that He fore-related to them. Before the foundation of the world (however you want to explain that regarding relativity and eternity), God fore-related people as family; because of this choice, God will draw these people according to His will effectually to be His children. The foreknowing of God to people says nothing about Him "foreseeing" actions or faith and responding appropriately. The Scriptures do not say, "Of whom he foreknew about" or "Whom he foreknew would believe." It says:

In Hebrew, Greek, and English, if one says that he knows a person, he is expressing that he has some form of non-passive relationship. God foreknowing people means that God fore-relationshipped them.

It is used as a s*xual idiom with the understanding that the use of know with a person as the object implies a non-passive relationship, not mere cognizance or awareness of existence or facts.

Refer back to post # 100.

 

[BaptistBob]

None of these passages imply marital relations; however, they obviously imply a relationship. If you say that you know a person, you are not expressing mere cognizance of existence or awareness of facts; you are implying that you have some form of non-passive relationship.

Even so, when the Scriptures say that God foreknew people; it is saying that He fore-related to them. Before the foundation of the world (however you want to explain that regarding relativity and eternity), God fore-related people as family; because of this choice, God will draw these people according to His will effectually to be His children. The foreknowing of God to people says nothing about Him "foreseeing" actions or faith and responding appropriately. The Scriptures do not say, "Of whom he foreknew about" or "Whom he foreknew would believe."

My perspective is quite different from Allan's, but I continually have to defend it because it is air-tight, and I can't defeat it. So for logical argument's sake......

The antecedent concept is "those who love God". Therefore, that identity is assumed in the following description. To say that that status is not is what is foreknown needs a better defense than mere assertions. Obviously God foreknew people, but that doesn't affect his position, since it is people who love God.

 

[OldRegular]

In an earlier post about the time the discussion became dominated by the Greek and/or Hebrew words translated foreknew [NASB] or did foreknow [KJV] I made the following statement [Post 39]: God obviously knew whom He was electing unto salvation but that WAS NOT on the basis of foreseen faith.

Now I don’t know either Greek nor Hebrew or a “little Greek” or a “little Hebrew” so this night I decided to see what John Gill had to say about the matter. He was reputably one of the foremost Hebrew and greek scholars of his day. However, he does not resort to either in his exegesis of the usage of the word and, therefore, the understanding of the passage Romans 8:29, 30.

29. For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
30. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

Gill writes:
Ver. 29. For whom he did foreknow, &c.] The foreknowledge of God here, does not intend his prescience of all things future; by which he foreknows and foretells things to come, and which distinguishes him from all other gods; and is so called, not with respect to himself, with whom all things are present, but with respect to us, and which is eternal, universal, certain, and infallible; for in this sense he foreknows all men, and if this was the meaning here, then all men would be predestinated, conformed to the image of Christ, called by grace, justified and glorified; whereas they are a special people, whom God has foreknown: nor is this foreknowledge to be understood of any provision or foresight of the good works, holiness, faith, and perseverance of men therein, upon which God predestinates them to happiness; since this would make something out of God, and not his good pleasure, the cause of predestination; which was done before, and without any consideration of good or evil, and is entirely owing to the free grace of God, and is the ground and foundation of good works, faith, holiness, and perseverance in them: but this regards the everlasting love of God to his own people, his delight in them, and approbation of them; in this sense he knew them, he foreknew them from everlasting, affectionately loved them, and took infinite delight and pleasure in them; and this is the foundation of their predestination and election, of their conformity to Christ, of their calling, justification, and glorification: for these

he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son;

It appears to me that Gill simply by applying logic to what the passage states arrives at the only possible meaning. That meaning is: God obviously knew whom He was electing unto salvation but that WAS NOT on the basis of foreseen faith.

 

[AresMan]

My perspective is quite different from Allan's, but I continually have to defend it because it is air-tight, and I can't defeat it. So for logical argument's sake......

The antecedent concept is "those who love God". Therefore, that identity is assumed in the following description. To say that that status is not is what is foreknown needs a better defense than mere assertions. Obviously God foreknew people, but that doesn't affect his position, since it is people who love God.

Simple, in Romans 8:28, logically, those who love God are those who are the called according to His purpose. The reason that they love God is because God called them according to His purpose.

Rom 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, [i.e.] to them who are the called according to his purpose.
Rom 8:29 For [because] whom he did foreknow, [them] he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son [i.e. sanctified], that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
Rom 8:30 Moreover whom he did predestinate [to sanctify], them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

Verse 30 clarifies that the exact same ones that God calls, he also justifies. Obviously this "calling" is not the general call but an effectual call. Verse 28 is equally clear that the same ones who love God are the ones who are called. They are not a subset of the ones called, they are the ones who are called.

God foreknew people. He fore-relationshipped people. He fore-familialized people. These people whom God chose to foreknow, He predestined their sanctification. He then called them and effectuated their justification. He then glorified them at their death.

You cannot break the "Golden Chain of Redemption."

 

[BaptistBob]

Simple, in Romans 8:28, logically, those who love God are those who are the called according to His purpose. The reason that they love God is because God called them according to His purpose.

You simply confused yourself with your selective emphasis.

Verse 28 "We know that all things work for good for those who love God......29 For......"

That is different than your interpretation:

"We know that they love God .....29 For..."

It does not say that they love God BECAUSE they were called, but that those who love God are called. The next verse clarifies the order, showing us how things work for the good of those who love God, and telling us that those who love God were foreknown, and those were predestined, and those were called, and those were justified, and those were glorified. Foreknowledge of "those who love God" preceedes their calling.

Verse 30 clarifies that the exact same ones that God calls, he also justifies.

Obviously.

Obviously this "calling" is not the general call but an effectual call.

No, it isn't obvious. Those who love God were foreknown, and them did he call. The passage merely tells us about those who love God, and says that God called them.

God foreknew people. He fore-relationshipped people. He fore-familialized people. These people whom God chose to foreknow, He predestined their sanctification. He then called them and effectuated their justification. He then glorified them at their death.

Again, you are asserting your conclusion and loading the terminology.

You cannot break the "Golden Chain of Redemption."

I didn't. You did.

 

[AresMan]

You simply confused yourself with your selective emphasis.

Verse 28 "We know that all things work for good for those who love God......29 For......"

That is different than your interpretation:

"We know that they love God .....29 For..."

It does not say that they love God BECAUSE they were called, but that those who love God are called.

Rom 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God [τοις αγαπωσιν τον θεον], to them who are the called [κλητοις] according to his purpose.

agapwsin - present active participle dative plural ("are loving")
kletois - past participle dative plural adjective

This verse is stating that those who are loving God have been called. This is the same issue that you would face with these other verses:

Joh 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe [πιστευουσιν] on his name:
Joh 1:13 Which were born [εγεννηθησαν], not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

pisteuousin - present active participle dative plural
egennethesan - aorist passive indicative third-person plural

Those who are believing have been born of God. The birth precedes the belief and the birth causes the belief.

1Jo 5:1 Whosoever believeth [πιστευων] that Jesus is the Christ is born [γεγεννημενον] of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.

pisteuwn - present active participle nominative singular
gegennemenon - present perfect passive participle accusative singular

The one who is believing has been born of God. The birth precedes the belief and the birth causes the belief.

Joh 10:26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.

Joh 10:15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.
Joh 10:18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

Being a sheep is the cause of the belief. These are the ones for whom Jesus laid down His life.

The tenses on the other verses above, including Romans 8:28, demonstrate this concept.

The next verse clarifies the order, showing us how things work for the good of those who love God, and telling us that those who love God were foreknown, and those were predestined, and those were called, and those were justified, and those were glorified. Foreknowledge of "those who love God" preceedes their calling.

Nope. The foreknowledge of God says nothing there about Him foreknowing their actions or their love for Him. It says that those who are loving God have been called. This calling was based upon His foreknowing them (not their love or their faith).

You are right in that verses 29-30 clarify how the things work together for good, but they also clarify the nature of the call. All of the actions upon these people are actions that God performed in eternity. Nothing in this passage implies that any action God performed here was in any way logically responsive and conditional upon something in the objects of His actions. He foreknew; He called; He justified; He sanctified; He glorified. The Golden Chain of Redemption cannot be broken, and God is the One Who did it all here.

No, it isn't obvious.

This obviously is not the general call because the parameters in the verses dictate that all who are called are also justified. You cannot disagree with this unless you are a universalist.

Those who love God were foreknown, and them did he call. The passage merely tells us about those who love God, and says that God called them.

Yes, but it says nothing about their loving God being the conditional basis upon God's actions here, as you reflexively assert. It says nothing about Him foreknowing their love or faith. It says that He foreknew them. Just as I know my brother and he knows me. Just as the Father knows the Son, and the Son knows the Father. God foreknew His people.

Again, you are asserting your conclusion and loading the terminology.

I am trying to explain the lexical definition of the word, and you cannot see why it makes sense because of your loading the terminology. You are assuming that foreknowing people must mean that He foreknew their actions, when the verse says nothing of the kind. You cannot see the tenses of the verbs here and in other verses that clearly demonstrate what is cause and what is effect and that knowing and foreknowing people indicates some kind of experiential relationship.

 

[Carico]

No, it isn't obvious. Those who love God were foreknown, and them did he call. The passage merely tells us about those who love God, and says that God called them.

So what makes people love God?

1) Their sinful nature
2) The devil
3) The Holy Spirit

 

[Winman]

Those who are believing have been born of God. The birth precedes the belief and the birth causes the belief.

That is exactly opposite what it says.

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

It says to those who "received him" which it clarifies as believeing on his name, to them "gave he power to become the sons of God".

They had to receive or believe first. THEN God gave them the power to be born again, which is receiving the Holy Spirit. And Ephesians shows this exact order.

Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

Ephesians 1:13 shows that a man

#1- hears the word of God
#2- trusts or believes
#3- receives the Holy Spirit

This is the order always shown in scripture, there are many examples.

Acts 2:37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

When these Jews heard the word of God from Peter they were convicted of their sin and asked what they should do. Peter told them they needed to repent, which means to turn from unbelief and trust in Jesus Christ as their savior, and upon repenting or believeing they would then receive the Holy Spirit.

That is one example among many I could list. The scriptures always show a man hears the word of God, then believes, then receives the Spirit.

There is not one verse in the Bible that shows that God regenerates a man to believe.

 

[BaptistBob]

agapwsin - present active participle dative plural ("are loving")
kletois - past participle dative plural adjective

Really? An adjective that is "past participle"???? How does that work? :laugh:

Try this:
ousin - present active dative plural masculine
kletios - adjective dative plural masculine

Now it's time to test my Greek (seek assistance if necessary):

And we know that all things are working together for good for the ones loving God, the ones being called ones according to His purpose.

This verse is stating that those who are loving God have been called. This is the same issue that you would face with these other verses:

It does? :laugh:

Joh 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe [πιστευουσιν] on his name:
Joh 1:13 Which were born [εγεννηθησαν], not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

pisteuousin - present active participle dative plural
egennethesan - aorist passive indicative third-person plural

Those who are believing have been born of God. The birth precedes the belief and the birth causes the belief.

No, verse 13 merely refers back to those who believed. They won't be born again in the future, therefore it MUST say that it has happed for believers. You want to make it refer to unbelievers being born, but that is not the point. All the major modern Calvinists agree with me. Consult Morris, Carson, Barrett, Bruce, Bock, Smalley, Tenney.

pisteuwn - present active participle nominative singular
gegennemenon - present perfect passive participle accusative singular

The one who is believing has been born of God. The birth precedes the belief and the birth causes the belief.

Nope. Same as above. Buy a modern Calvinist commentary so that you can trust the messenger. The author of 1 John is offering tests of fellowship and descriptions of believers. There is only one way to discuss things that have happened, and future tense is not the way.

Being a sheep is the cause of the belief. These are the ones for whom Jesus laid down His life.

No, believing the father's word (both past and present) is a condition of being a sheep and believing Christ. If they say the are blind, they are looking to God and and trusting him. They will know the True Shepherd when he comes.

The tenses on the other verses above, including Romans 8:28, demonstrate this concept.

You mean the "past participle adjective"? :laugh:

Nope. The foreknowledge of God says nothing there about Him foreknowing their actions or their love for Him. It says that those who are loving God have been called. This calling was based upon His foreknowing them (not their love or their faith).

The antecedent of the series of hous is "those who love God". Paul explains what God is doing for them. There is no ambiguity concerning their identity.

Nothing in this passage implies that any action God performed here was in any way logically responsive and conditional upon something in the objects of His actions.

I wouldn't expect anything else. The verse doesn't say they believed either. The reason why is that the reference is to believers (i.e., "those who love God"), so it doesn't need to be repeated.

This obviously is not the general call because the parameters in the verses dictate that all who are called are also justified. You cannot disagree with this unless you are a universalist.

False choice. The reference is to those who love God. It says God foreknew them and called them. No one else is in view.

For example, I might say that God foreknew and called you (a believer) and is conforming you to the image of his son. By saying that I would not be saying anything negative or positive about anyone else.

I am trying to explain the lexical definition of the word, and you cannot see why it makes sense because of your loading the terminology. You are assuming that foreknowing people must mean that He foreknew their actions, when the verse says nothing of the kind. You cannot see the tenses of the verbs here and in other verses that clearly demonstrate what is cause and what is effect and that knowing and foreknowing people indicates some kind of experiential relationship.

No, you are loading the terminology, as has been demonstrated over the last few days. The terminology in Jewish literature is clear.

(Again, my perspective is different than the one I am defending. The criticism of the view, however, is not reasonable, imho. That is why I am defending it.)

 

[Carico]

That is exactly opposite what it says.

I trust you believe 1 Corinthians 2:14, "The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from God for they are foolishness to him and he cannot understand them because they are spiritually discerned."

If you believe that verse, Winman, then put it together with the verses you quoted so you won't make God's words contradict themselves. Then you can answer my question about where faith comes from; the sinful nature (which is contrary to God), the devil, or the Holy Spirit. :wavey:

 

[Winman]

Carico

I do believe that verse. The difference between me and you is that I understand it. I have written several posts in complete detail, and other posters have commented on my answers. You simply want to believe a man-made doctrine.

I just showed Ephesians 1:13. Read it for yourself and see what it says.

Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

What does this verse say they did first? It says they trusted after hearing the word of truth, the gospel of their salvation. What does it say happened after trusting or believeing the gospel? It says they were then sealed with the Holy Spirit.

You know, God doesn't make mistakes in the scriptures. Twice the word "after" is show in this verse. This verse makes it absolutely clear and unmistakeable the order of events that take place in salvation. You will not find another verse in the Bible that so specifically shows the order of events in salvation as this verse. If you think you know a better verse, I would love to see it.

Nowhere in the scriptures does it ever show that God regenerates a man to believe. Even Calvinists admit this. They have to, because it is a fact.

Jesus said the dead could hear his voice, and those that hear should live.

John 5:25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.

John 11:25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:

Sorry to upset your apple cart, but Jesus said the dead can hear his voice. This is speaking of the unsaved. And those that hear and believe shall live.

And if you put these verses spoken by Jesus together with Ephesians 1:13 and John 1:12 you will see they are in complete agreement. John 1:12 shows that to those that received Christ, those that believe on his name, "to them" gave he power (Holy Spirit) to "become" the sons of God.

Why would they have to "become" the sons of God if they were already regenerated?

You need to quit listening to the teachings of men and listen to the scriptures.

 

[Carico]

Nowhere in the scriptures does it ever show that God regenerates a man to believe. Even Calvinists admit this. They have to, because it is a fact.

So then faith is not a fruit of the Spirit, it's a fruit of the sinful nature. Is that correct? :laugh: WRONG. So why would man need regeneration if he already has faith? Perhaps he needs to be DELIVERED of his faith in God. So your belief doesn't even make sense by HUMAN standards.

So you are twisting and ignoring verses and still have not answered where faith comes from. I'll clue you in; it's not from the devil or the sinful nature. it's a GIFT from God so that no one can boast as Ephesians 2:8-9 explains.

So because you twist those verses, you have also turned Romans 9:11 into the OPPOSITE of what it says.

And I have no idea what Calvin says because I don't read Calvin. I simply use the term "Calvinist" to distinguish from the false claim that man is by nature good which non-Calvinists claim. That would mean that man wouldn't need a savior if he can already be righteous by his own free will. "There is no one righteous, not even one." That means that only the righteousness that comes from God makes anyone good. That's 100% BIBLICAL.

So you are 100% incorrect all the way around. Your theology renders Christ's death meaningless.